I would not expect a large Flash animation to work on a dinky device such as an iPhone or iTouch.
But give me a 10" screen and tell me "It's the best way to experience the web"... then yes I expect Flash to work. And if it didn't work, I'd be expecting it to be "coming soon". Since neither appears to be the case IMO iPad is flawed at it's core.
Personally, I have strabismus, so none of the 3D systems out there work for me at all. Essentially I see double, all the time, even with one eye closed which the doctor found interesting... he was amazed I could drive.
When the known viruses were limited to the various influenza strains and the mostly defeated childhood diseases it wasn't such a big deal. Now that HIV is mainstream and Ebola is well known, and there was semi-constant coverage about H1N1 and it's potential for mutation to a more lethal form... well yeah there is a fear factor happening here.
the USSR built a ground based laser and played it over the shuttle's window
I have never heard about this, and it would be fascinating if true, but I can't find any official cite of this incident. I see a one liner on Wikipedia about it copied from another non-official source, but the NASA mission report for STS-41G does not mention anything about it: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075377_1992075377.pdf
Re:Like Woz didn't move on a LONG time ago?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 1
True, but all the software they write is just a vehicle to sell their hardware. I'd be all over running iLife on one of my Dell desktops if Apple were to offer it as a legitimate option.
It may suck, but it wasn't that long ago (~15 years ago) that there was more COBOL in production than any other language. It wouldn't surprise me if it was still in the top 5 today.
That said the key difference is that a deduction is a gift that is pleasant (you pay less tax). A fine hurts. It's a punishment.
I would have really preferred that HCR worded it as a tax credit for carrying insurance rather than a fine for not, but again a deduction you don't take is practically no different than paying a fine... in either case you are paying more tax for not buying something than someone else who did.
And it's a punishment enacted without benefit of a trial by a jury of your peers...If someone chooses not to buy health insurance, do you think the government should FORCE them to comply, including being rounded-up by men with guns and carted off to jail (or fined)? If you answer yes, doesn't that use of "force" bother you? Doesn't it remind you of a certain Socialist Union?
I don't think trial by jury is relevant here, especially in talking about HCR since the current penalty has no teeth... going to get some popcorn and watch how THAT turns out./smirk
I was really directly answering theaveng's points, but it wouldn't bother me to eliminate *everything* in the tax code other than a straight percentage of income.
As far as the business rules on cars goes that is just one example of the completely different tax rules for businesses... e.g. businesses don't get the mortgage deduction, which doesn't affect future tax liability on sale and in fact we get a generous write off of profits if we live there long enough, but rather they must take a depreciation deduction which can increase tax liability if the property is eventually sold for more than the depreciated basis. I don't pretend to know what, if anything, ultimately should be done there.
Is there really much distinction between "buy this or you will be fined" and "buy this and get a deduction or credit"? Because you were effectively "fined" up to $3,400 for not buying a hybrid, and up to $1,500 for not buying a tankless water heater. OTOH you're not fined for not buying the Bush Biography... the IRS likes to cause pain, but they thankfully do have some limits.
I really hope you are not serious. Fun movie, yes. Science study, no. My father, who is a weatherman, was laughing hysterically at how completely stupid the science was in that movie.
SO if you indiscriminately pump loads of CO2 in the atmosphere what do you think is going to happen?
Assuming some nature is left to take it's course, the trees will start growing much faster, absorb the extra CO2, and eventually die off to create the next layer of coal for us to burn in the far future. Yes, that's already starting to happen now. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116163206.htm
Of course if we cut all the trees down we will then seal our own fate.
I think they're sure that the Earth has been warming up. What they are not so sure about is if humans have any meaningful impact on the warming or if it is just mostly the natural heat/cool cycle at work.
Given that where I live was under a glacier 11,000 years ago IMO a little extra help warming wouldn't hurt... a new ice age would be far more destructive to humans than a higher sea level due to warming.
I did the same thing. I loved all of the C&C series (except Renegade) but I'm just not putting up with something that I can't play on the go. Although I might reconsider if they come out with a C&C Online MMO.
If I were to move to Russia surely I would feel oppressed by Russian culture just as much as you feel so here. But there isn't necessarily a single "USA" culture either... there are some vastly different cultures between the "deep south", Texas, WV, CA, as well as in different parts of NYC and Chicago.
They are not mandating that you purchase insurance, they are simply increasing your income tax by 2.5% if you do not. The SCOTUS will very likely have no problem with this.
Secondly, there is still a large government operating cost... I can't find the exact figure right now, but it was recently estimated at around 35 billion a day..
Ouch. $35 Billion/Day x 365 = $12.7 Trillion/Year... roughly equal to the entire national debt. I'd say you were off by a factor of 10, or even 100.
Re:It is bad, wrong way to go about it
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 1
So her healthcare would have cost 70% more if the insurance had paid for it.
No most likely it wouldn't. Insurance pays a "negotiated rate" which in all likelyhood would have been about the same as the 70% discount you received. The first step toward true health care reform would be to make it illegal for a health care provider to charge an individual a different rate than they accept from insurance.
Medicare, is far, far more efficient than the private insurance industry, for the very reasons outlined above. Don't believe me? Look it up. The figures vary, depending on whose you're reading, but every single study has shown that the private insurance industry's overhead is at least twice, and usually several times that of Medicare's.
No it's not more efficient, it's about the same or worse. The figures which quote Medicare as being so efficient all give administrative costs as a percentage of claims. Since Medicare only treats people ~65 and older they tend to have more expensive claims, so the administrative costs as a percentage of claims is lower.
If you compare costs per subscriber Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher, and they don't even have sales/marketing people or the need to generate a profit for shareholders like most insurers. Look it up.
That would be a ripe target for fraud. You're not going to track double billing or anything?
Re:So why don't we try something else...
on
Health Care Reform
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
(not counting the portion they pay).
That's a rather large thing to not count, especially since it likely amounts to more than double what you are paying. Your example should be more like $2616 per visit.
But your car analogy does touch on an important point, which is that your gas (healthcare) provider is gouging you with high rates then giving a discount to the insurance company, which reduces everyone's ability to survive without insurance.
If the Feds would simply pass a law which says that a health care provider cannot charge different rates to individuals and insurance companies most of the health care reform problem goes away. You would then see a large shift from high cost, high coverage policies to low cost catastrophic policies... which is really what insurance should be about.
Slashdot Mirror
I would not expect a large Flash animation to work on a dinky device such as an iPhone or iTouch.
But give me a 10" screen and tell me "It's the best way to experience the web"... then yes I expect Flash to work. And if it didn't work, I'd be expecting it to be "coming soon". Since neither appears to be the case IMO iPad is flawed at it's core.
the iPad is innovative in its approach
What, exactly, is innovative about "super-size me"?
Three years ago the iTouch/iPhone were innovative. They created a whole new handheld app monopoly for Apple. That's a big, big deal.
The iPad is simply the latest refresh of an established product line.
Personally, I have strabismus, so none of the 3D systems out there work for me at all. Essentially I see double, all the time, even with one eye closed which the doctor found interesting... he was amazed I could drive.
no, it couldn't happen
When the known viruses were limited to the various influenza strains and the mostly defeated childhood diseases it wasn't such a big deal. Now that HIV is mainstream and Ebola is well known, and there was semi-constant coverage about H1N1 and it's potential for mutation to a more lethal form... well yeah there is a fear factor happening here.
Do you really think it's completely unjustified?
Then they should make a variant of the virus that splits C02.
You don't need a virus to do that... just a match.
/aside... can colorblind people see the 3D effect in a typical red/blue 3D film?
the USSR built a ground based laser and played it over the shuttle's window
I have never heard about this, and it would be fascinating if true, but I can't find any official cite of this incident. I see a one liner on Wikipedia about it copied from another non-official source, but the NASA mission report for STS-41G does not mention anything about it: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920075377_1992075377.pdf
True, but all the software they write is just a vehicle to sell their hardware. I'd be all over running iLife on one of my Dell desktops if Apple were to offer it as a legitimate option.
It may suck, but it wasn't that long ago (~15 years ago) that there was more COBOL in production than any other language. It wouldn't surprise me if it was still in the top 5 today.
That said the key difference is that a deduction is a gift that is pleasant (you pay less tax). A fine hurts. It's a punishment.
I would have really preferred that HCR worded it as a tax credit for carrying insurance rather than a fine for not, but again a deduction you don't take is practically no different than paying a fine... in either case you are paying more tax for not buying something than someone else who did.
And it's a punishment enacted without benefit of a trial by a jury of your peers...If someone chooses not to buy health insurance, do you think the government should FORCE them to comply, including being rounded-up by men with guns and carted off to jail (or fined)? If you answer yes, doesn't that use of "force" bother you? Doesn't it remind you of a certain Socialist Union?
I don't think trial by jury is relevant here, especially in talking about HCR since the current penalty has no teeth... going to get some popcorn and watch how THAT turns out. /smirk
I was really directly answering theaveng's points, but it wouldn't bother me to eliminate *everything* in the tax code other than a straight percentage of income.
As far as the business rules on cars goes that is just one example of the completely different tax rules for businesses... e.g. businesses don't get the mortgage deduction, which doesn't affect future tax liability on sale and in fact we get a generous write off of profits if we live there long enough, but rather they must take a depreciation deduction which can increase tax liability if the property is eventually sold for more than the depreciated basis. I don't pretend to know what, if anything, ultimately should be done there.
Is there really much distinction between "buy this or you will be fined" and "buy this and get a deduction or credit"? Because you were effectively "fined" up to $3,400 for not buying a hybrid, and up to $1,500 for not buying a tankless water heater. OTOH you're not fined for not buying the Bush Biography... the IRS likes to cause pain, but they thankfully do have some limits.
4. Just don't post stuff that your boss or mother would be offended by.
I really hope you are not serious. Fun movie, yes. Science study, no. My father, who is a weatherman, was laughing hysterically at how completely stupid the science was in that movie.
SO if you indiscriminately pump loads of CO2 in the atmosphere what do you think is going to happen?
Assuming some nature is left to take it's course, the trees will start growing much faster, absorb the extra CO2, and eventually die off to create the next layer of coal for us to burn in the far future. Yes, that's already starting to happen now. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091116163206.htm
Of course if we cut all the trees down we will then seal our own fate.
I think they're sure that the Earth has been warming up. What they are not so sure about is if humans have any meaningful impact on the warming or if it is just mostly the natural heat/cool cycle at work.
Given that where I live was under a glacier 11,000 years ago IMO a little extra help warming wouldn't hurt... a new ice age would be far more destructive to humans than a higher sea level due to warming.
I did the same thing. I loved all of the C&C series (except Renegade) but I'm just not putting up with something that I can't play on the go. Although I might reconsider if they come out with a C&C Online MMO.
If I were to move to Russia surely I would feel oppressed by Russian culture just as much as you feel so here. But there isn't necessarily a single "USA" culture either... there are some vastly different cultures between the "deep south", Texas, WV, CA, as well as in different parts of NYC and Chicago.
They are not mandating that you purchase insurance, they are simply increasing your income tax by 2.5% if you do not. The SCOTUS will very likely have no problem with this.
Secondly, there is still a large government operating cost... I can't find the exact figure right now, but it was recently estimated at around 35 billion a day..
Ouch. $35 Billion/Day x 365 = $12.7 Trillion/Year... roughly equal to the entire national debt. I'd say you were off by a factor of 10, or even 100.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/LearnToBudget/how-much-jobless-pay-would-you-get.aspx shows New Jersey $584, Massachusetts $628 and Minnesota $566. This is for a single person... most states also have kickers if you have kids and/or a non working spouse.
So her healthcare would have cost 70% more if the insurance had paid for it.
No most likely it wouldn't. Insurance pays a "negotiated rate" which in all likelyhood would have been about the same as the 70% discount you received. The first step toward true health care reform would be to make it illegal for a health care provider to charge an individual a different rate than they accept from insurance.
Medicare, is far, far more efficient than the private insurance industry, for the very reasons outlined above. Don't believe me? Look it up. The figures vary, depending on whose you're reading, but every single study has shown that the private insurance industry's overhead is at least twice, and usually several times that of Medicare's.
No it's not more efficient, it's about the same or worse. The figures which quote Medicare as being so efficient all give administrative costs as a percentage of claims. Since Medicare only treats people ~65 and older they tend to have more expensive claims, so the administrative costs as a percentage of claims is lower.
If you compare costs per subscriber Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher, and they don't even have sales/marketing people or the need to generate a profit for shareholders like most insurers. Look it up.
That would be a ripe target for fraud. You're not going to track double billing or anything?
(not counting the portion they pay).
That's a rather large thing to not count, especially since it likely amounts to more than double what you are paying. Your example should be more like $2616 per visit.
But your car analogy does touch on an important point, which is that your gas (healthcare) provider is gouging you with high rates then giving a discount to the insurance company, which reduces everyone's ability to survive without insurance.
If the Feds would simply pass a law which says that a health care provider cannot charge different rates to individuals and insurance companies most of the health care reform problem goes away. You would then see a large shift from high cost, high coverage policies to low cost catastrophic policies... which is really what insurance should be about.